Glyph of Confession on a newly returned player who doesn't know what it does, and couldn't figure out why she kept confessing to things that were making us give her a hard time.

That was really fun, though lol

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.

all while someone was giving her shit about her "confessions"though i am glad you finally broke down and told her

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPSAmirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego. Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.

Working as only a subsidiary of Facebook (or perhaps Netflix) could, they first rolled out what they characterized as a simplification of their ToS, but of course allowed themselves vast new powers, and then pulled back when everyone revolted, except they really didn't pull back. Based on their new wording, which still isn't final, you still could see your images in ads, without compensation.

The best course seems to be to go back to Flickr if you really are a photographer, or start using something like Pick or Twitter if you are just sharing photos of your breakfast...

Will be interesting and amusing to see how it plays out.

Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.

What I don't get, is how these big companies can get this stuff through their legal departments, when they operate internationally.ToS cannot in most european law I've read (including danish) in anyway take away your rights to material you hold the copyright to, and you are the only one that is allowed to earn money, unless specifically* sold to others.

Unless such a contract specifically exists, not only is all earnings from selling the use of your work forfeit to you, you are entitled to compensatory damages in a punitive amount. Doing it comercially and systemically is an aggrevating circumstance.

*Specifically meaning a specific contract describing the sold work, and which rights specifically are transferred and which aren't.

Yeah, I don't see how these companies get it through their legal departments - its lawsuits waiting to happen, and as soon as the first settlement/verdict hhits the news, everyone will want thier piece - meaning its a bankruptcy more than likely.

Nooska wrote:Yeah, I don't see how these companies get it through their legal departments - its lawsuits waiting to happen, and as soon as the first settlement/verdict hhits the news, everyone will want thier piece - meaning its a bankruptcy more than likely.

In the US, by and large, it's all down to time, money and fear: making any potential claimants afraid of the size of the of your legal warchest, and betting that they won't have the money or time to pursue it to its end.

Aye, in europe (at least denmark) you can't do that as much - ogh and there are national organisations that will take on the copyright holders claims if they feel it is a case where principles might be at stake.

Nooska wrote:What I don't get, is how these big companies can get this stuff through their legal departments, when they operate internationally.ToS cannot in most european law I've read (including danish) in anyway take away your rights to material you hold the copyright to, and you are the only one that is allowed to earn money, unless specifically* sold to others.

ToS never really take away your rights, you're granting other people rights to use your stuff. Some ToS seem wonky on first glance, like all cloud storage services have a term about you granting them the right to duplicate and copy, which sounds bad until you realize that they mean they need to copy the file among their servers.

Nooska wrote:Aye, in europe (at least denmark) you can't do that as much - ogh and there are national organisations that will take on the copyright holders claims if they feel it is a case where principles might be at stake.

The organizations here that do that are terribly one-sided.. (i.e. the oxymoron of the ACLU).

What does work here is class-action lawsuits, but those are typically resolved in favor of the attorneys running them.

Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.

Nooska wrote:What I don't get, is how these big companies can get this stuff through their legal departments, when they operate internationally.ToS cannot in most european law I've read (including danish) in anyway take away your rights to material you hold the copyright to, and you are the only one that is allowed to earn money, unless specifically* sold to others.

ToS never really take away your rights, you're granting other people rights to use your stuff. Some ToS seem wonky on first glance, like all cloud storage services have a term about you granting them the right to duplicate and copy, which sounds bad until you realize that they mean they need to copy the file among their servers.

Right, and there are a number of similar important clauses... I think most take issue with when that article is not longer used to cover necessary use due to infrastructure or technology, and instead result in 'we're gonna sell it to other parties too'.

I recall seeing something from some recent round of Facebook or Instagram TOS updates that said something like "we retain the rights until the user deletes the account, except when the content had been shared with others and they retain a copy" ... which *could* mean they never have to reliquish the granted rights since they can't really prove that a copy doesn't remain in someone's cache, or they specifically define the terms to exclude that type of copy.

In at least 4 european countries EULAs and TOS are null and void for legal contentions -which these companies should also have legal teams telling them.Even if some terms are valid, unless the terms as a whole are valid, the whole thing is null and void, unless exceptions have been made for void terms.

In general, the legal side of it here is "if you put in stuff thats not legal, all your stuff is gone - caveat venditor - you are the one with the money and knowledge beforehand to know what should and shouldn't be said or agreed upon.

Working as only a subsidiary of Facebook (or perhaps Netflix) could, they first rolled out what they characterized as a simplification of their ToS, but of course allowed themselves vast new powers, and then pulled back when everyone revolted, except they really didn't pull back. Based on their new wording, which still isn't final, you still could see your images in ads, without compensation.

The best course seems to be to go back to Flickr if you really are a photographer, or start using something like Pick or Twitter if you are just sharing photos of your breakfast...

They realized when they lost a substantial % of users and accounts in a 24 hour period. The revolt was quick, fast, and noticeable. I follow ~300 people on my "non personal" instagram account, and lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 people in the wake of the announcement. Professionals, journalists, artists. All gone.

Nooska wrote:That alst one is a part of the system - if you share a photo, and I then share it, then it doesn't disappear from my timeline because you delete it.

Correct - which is its intended function (perhaps not all like it, but I can see it). However, legal wording is picky for a reason: a certain amount of vague wording *could* (I'm talking tin-foil hat here, but bear with me) allow for situations that the end-user may not have considered.

Really it's always been this way: simply asking you to say you understand a contract and then signing it means jack all about if you *actually understood it*... it's why contract law is a thing.

Instagram has no ability, and you grant them no right to, sell your pictures. What it does say is that your pictures may show up in the stream of a sponsored party, i.e. the New York Yankees sponsoring a page and showing many Instagram pictures of Yankee Stadium from many different users.

We live in a society where people born on third base constantly try to steal second, yet we expect people born with two strikes against them to hit a homerun on the first pitch.